WTC 7 Question - why blow it up?

JamesB said:
I am constantly amused by the truthers mentioning the CIA had an office there. As if they would be so motivated to blow up their own building. What, they didn't like the break room or something and couldn't get out of the lease?
Click to expand...
Terrible coffee in that break room you mentioned.

I guess you could use the OKC building as an example.

Off topic of course, did you happen to see the Conspiracy Files on the Discovery Channel over the OKC building. They recreated the truck bombing and didn't quite get the results they were hoping to achieve. Not only that, the column didn't explode apart either as viewed in the animation or in league with the official story on that building. It was only peppered with shrapnel and was still in one piece. Imagine that.
Then they tried again without the truck surrounding the bomb and it still didn't get that column to shatter into pieces.
 
Swing Dangler said:
1. Who has the capability to rig the building without interference from local police and local security all without tipping the public off?

2. What tenets within the building would have access to the resources to plan the rigging and to carry out the rigging of the building?

3. Is there a historical record of similar tenets destroying their own residence so to speak or with a record of terrorism?

4. Which tenets would have access to the entire building?

5. Which tenet would most likely hire foreign operatives to maintain "plausible denialbility" if the fire excuse doesn't pan out?

6. Which tenet could have the investigation limited to certain floors and areas?
Click to expand...

Of course you are implying the CIA, I don't think they are that omnipotent. Care to provide any proof that the CIA could do any of these things?
 
Well as regards number three, there is no historical record I'm aware of wherein the CIA destroys its own residence, so to speak, so that's one area that doesn't fit the CIA at least.
 
Swing Dangler said:
"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."-John SKilling-Head Structural Engineer WTC-1993 Seattle Times
Click to expand...


For the sake of clarity, you should probably parenthetically add the following to your signature:

  • Skilling is a structural engineer and not a demolition expert.
  • He is indulging in off-the-cuff speculation.
  • No one has claimed that World Trade Center buildings were simply impervious to demolition.
 
Pardalis said:
Of course you are implying the CIA, I don't think they are that omnipotent. Care to provide any proof that the CIA could do any of these things?
Click to expand...

ROFLMAO. It is speculation. Why the hell would you ask for proof?? Did you read the big black letters below that I posted?

Does the CIA fit all of those discussion questions I posted?
 
Swing Dangler said:
ROFLMAO. It is speculation.
Click to expand...

You simply can't just "speculate" and use that as your scapegoat. There is something that led you down that train of thought. Its not something you just pull out of thin air, and state.

We can speculate that a herd of unicorns being chased by the Red Bull* caused WTC 7 to collapse, but of course, we freely admit that there is no proof of that speculation and can see why its not something anyone would take into consideration as a valid reason for why it collapsed.



*kudos to anyone who gets the reference.
 
Par said:
For the sake of clarity, you should probably parenthetically add the following to your signature:

  • Skilling is a structural engineer and not a demolition expert.
  • He is indulging in off-the-cuff speculation.
  • No one has claimed that World Trade Center buildings were simply impervious to demolition.
Click to expand...

He is indulging in off the cuff speculation? Care to provide proof of that?
Or is it likely he had been pouring over the buildings plans after the 1993 truck bombing and is quite aware what would and what would not bring his buildings down?
Well as regards number three, there is no historical record I'm aware of wherein the CIA destroys its own residence, so to speak, so that's one area that doesn't fit the CIA at least.
Click to expand...
I'm not aware of any instances either. Other people's buildings, perhaps, but not their own.
 
Arus808 said:
You simply can't just "speculate" and use that as your scapegoat. There is something that led you down that train of thought. Its not something you just pull out of thin air, and state.

We can speculate that a herd of unicorns being chased by the Red Bull caused WTC 7 to collapse, but of course, we freely admit that there is no proof of that speculation and can see why its not something anyone would take into consideration as a valid reason for why it collapsed.
Click to expand...
Motivation causes collapses??

It isn't a scapegoat, it is speculation. Go back to those questions I asked to see if any of the residents of the building matched any of the criteria and then we can discuss your answer and pure speculations.
 
Sabrina said:
Well as regards number three, there is no historical record I'm aware of wherein the CIA destroys its own residence, so to speak, so that's one area that doesn't fit the CIA at least.
Click to expand...

One must understand -- the CIA is an all-purpose, all-occasions, one-size-fits-all monster. All that needs to be done is to refer to the presence of the CIA and all thought and conversation stops. It is proof that Evil has been done, is being done, or will be done. That, at least, is the mindset.

I don't know whether I've ever known anyone in the CIA. I knew a guy in grad school who joined the NSA as a Soviet-bloc analyst of some sort. Didn't see him again for 15 years. (Approx 1978-93.)

Once, in grad school, I had a very brief interview with ... Defense Intelligence of some sort. It took me and the interviewer about 1 minute to establish that we weren't a match so we just chatted for 20-30 min. The secretary at the Russian studies center at my university just threw me in to avoid embarrassment because no one had signed up for an interview. (Again, ca.1978). Oh well. I'm always happy to talk and even listen, if I can learn something.
 
Swing Dangler said:
Motivation causes collapses??

It isn't a scapegoat, it is speculation.
Click to expand...

No, its your scapegoat, so that you dont provide the reason behind your claims. Your scapegoat, is to say they are merely "speculations" . Sorry, we dont buy that.

You've been here long enough, given AMPLE answers to why your "speculations" are not grounded in reality, yet you continue to repeat them like a broken record.

So, either provide your reasons as to why you think that way, or retract your claims.
 
Arus808 said:
You simply can't just "speculate" and use that as your scapegoat. There is something that led you down that train of thought. Its not something you just pull out of thin air, and state.

We can speculate that a herd of unicorns being chased by the Red Bull* caused WTC 7 to collapse, but of course, we freely admit that there is no proof of that speculation and can see why its not something anyone would take into consideration as a valid reason for why it collapsed.



*kudos to anyone who gets the reference.
Click to expand...

Get the reference? Arus, I own the MOVIE. I ADORE The Last Unicorn. :D
 
SDC said:
One must understand -- the CIA is an all-purpose, all-occasions, one-size-fits-all monster. All that needs to be done is to refer to the presence of the CIA and all thought and conversation stops. It is proof that Evil has been done, is being done, or will be done. That, at least, is the mindset.

I don't know whether I've ever known anyone in the CIA. I knew a guy in grad school who joined the NSA as a Soviet-bloc analyst of some sort. Didn't see him again for 15 years. (Approx 1978-93.)

Once, in grad school, I had a very brief interview with ... Defense Intelligence of some sort. It took me and the interviewer about 1 minute to establish that we weren't a match so we just chatted for 20-30 min. The secretary at the Russian studies center at my university just threw me in to avoid embarrassment because no one had signed up for an interview. (Again, ca.1978). Oh well. I'm always happy to talk and even listen, if I can learn something.
Click to expand...

I work in the Intelligence Community and have met several people who have either worked for the CIA in the past or work for them now. The CIA has its issues, much like any other intelligence agency, but it is hardly an all-knowing black cabal of evildoers that is not subject to any law. If anything, US government agencies are held to a much higher standard than regular Americans are. Do they make mistakes and screw up in ways that make them look incompetent/evil/idiotic? Sure, but they are human, after all. And I know of no instance in which IC people were not held accountable for the error made (and whatever twoofer is reading this thread, please do NOT bring up 9/11 as an example; it has been shown time and again that there was virtually NOTHING that could be done to prevent 9/11) and penalized for it.
 
^_^ haha Sabrina...I met Peter S. Beagle over the last weekend. Had him sign my copy of the BOOK and DVD. and got more insight into the manga version of his book.
 
Swing Dangler said:
If WTC 7 was CD'ed, as it appears it was...
Click to expand...
The collapse of WTC7 may be said to have visually looked similar to a controlled demolition, but you're neglecting another important item: sound.

Explosive charges used to bring down a building in a controlled demolition are LOUD.

The sounds they produce are very noticeable and quite distinctive, and anyone within blocks and blocks of the building would have easily heard them.

No such sounds are recorded on any news footage of the WTC7 collapse, nor do any witnesses in the area report hearing the distinct sounds of explosive demolition charges going off.
 
Arus808 said:
No, its your scapegoat, so that you dont provide the reason behind your claims. Your scapegoat, is to say they are merely "speculations" . Sorry, we dont buy that.

You've been here long enough, given AMPLE answers to why your "speculations" are not grounded in reality, yet you continue to repeat them like a broken record.

So, either provide your reasons as to why you think that way, or retract your claims.
Click to expand...

Hmmm....so we're talking about a troll that keeps a scapegoat as a pet?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom